Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

You are adding to what I am asking. You believe in the unknowable because you want it to be true. Not because someone has observed it.

The idea that only uneducated and low intelligence or little education is required to be a Christian is a grossly ignorant and exaggerated error. There are hundreds of Ph.D level and masters degree scientists who are Christians. Many accept God's Word as written. Just the other day I saw a video by a Ph.D scientist who went to a creation seminar to correct the speakers. He was converted due to the abundance of factual information presented and eventually became a Christian.

Again I ask, Where did the first information come that made the first living cell?

No kidding. The theists wouldn't have a post anywhere.

Evolutians can't exist without theists.

Cause the only argument they got is that (in their opinion), the religion stuff makes even less sense than the theory of evolution.

Given the abundance of evidence from biology, geology, fossils, etc, evolution is the only thing that makes sense.

No.

Evolution stands on it's own merits. Conversely, creationist myths cannot. Even if tomorrow evolution was effectively refuted, you would still have all your work ahead of you, because it would not prove your belief true, you would still be left with no good evidence for your beliefs.

CF Christians have said God is beyond the 3D time/space thing...

Ark of the Covenant;

Exodus 25:8
"And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst."

Exodus 25:22
There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony,
I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.


Infinite God not constrained by time, infinite God not bound by space, became manifest in one locale.
A God not bound by time, bound Himself to the time-bound
A God not bound by space, bound Himself to that box.

The one above all natural world creational constraints wasnt everywhere, nor was he just anywhere...He was right there.

The theory of evolution fails on its own merits.

That's why it's called the theory of evolution.

No need for refutation, at all. The burden is on its proponents.

94 pages by my fire screen count, and of course, the burden hasn't been met, and likely never will be.

But what *has* occurred on all these pages, is evolutians disparaging theistic viewpoints as a purported support of the theory of evolution.

Evolutians appear to be very sensitive about their faith.

And certainly, none would ever deny Darwin three times before the cock crows.

Fubs, Please learn what "theory" means in science. It's not what you think it is, and your ignorance is showing. Again.

And it certainly does not fail on its own merits, but rather succeeds quite splendidly. Over and over and over again.

Rich, considering that some star systems and galaxies are millions and millions of light years away from Earth. And considering that we are looking at them, definitively demonstrates that such star or galaxy is at least millions of years old.

We can not say if that star is still there today. But we know it was there millions of years ago, because that is how long it took the light to reach Earth.

Yep.

Anyone who uses the word Theory like Fubarski does in relation to science only demonstrates his extreme level of scientific ignorance.

Theory means (pick one):

a: hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE

c: abstract thought : SPECULATION

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Not hard to believe evolutians are confused by a simple word, when they have faith in someone that discovers a fossilized toe bone that proves a larger cranium.

Maybe not confusion, though. Might be a part of the long con that is the theory of evolution, removin the accurate description of it to make it seem more legitimate.

The theory of evolution has not and cannot be proved at the present time.

All I can do is speculate which word scares the shat outa evolutians the worst, macroevolution or theory.

Call it the theory of evolutians.

Good job continuing to display your ignorance.

He's some help for you from Wikipedia:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

Just because the New Testament uses the format of identifying that a story is a parable doesn't mean all stories in the Bible are meant to be taken literally.

Wikipedia, a good liberal site that can be relied upon for promoting liberal falsehoods.

Let's try a more credible source:

"In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts. "

This would be from your "science" boys themselves.

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Like I posted, you look at a fossilized toe bone, and christen it a whole new species.

Pull that crap in any other science, and you'd get laughed outta the building.

There's no question "evolution", which just means change, happens.

But the theory of evolution, the explanation of what the change means, is unproven, and isn't likely to ever *be* proven, as I posted.

Fairly apparent through alla these pages, is that ever time you evolutians get handed your head because you can't prove the theory, you drag the conversation down with semantics.

Tried/failed again here, but it doesn't matter.

You can't prove the theory, and that's all that does matter.

Evolution is proven. The 'theory of evolution' refers to the means and mechanisms of evolution.

''A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]''

''A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.''

There was a comment earlier that our ability to think made us special and perhaps alluded to having a soul - either way something extra provided by god and not otherwise " natural". There's plenty of cases where personality has changed following brain damage or disease. Not a soul, but biological function I'm afraid.

(Almost 100 pages)

And yet may be wrong.

The factual foundation, geology, fossils, genetic diversity, gene expression, epigenetics, etc, can't be wrong. It is what it is, it is objective independent evidence. What can be wrong being the details of how organisms evolve....environmental pressure forcing adaption, gene expression, the role of mutations, etc....not that animals and plants can and do evolve.